The Trend Toward Human Breast Milk for Adult Food

By Dana McCauley

I’m sorry. I have to do it. As much as I’m squicked out by this topic myself and as much as I know it may squick many of you out, today we are going to talk about the strange and perplexing emerging trend toward using human breast milk as an ingredient in food for adults.

I get local. I get homemade. But, I don’t get this impulse at all. I have no aversion to babies drinking their mother’s milk but I have no interest in sharing their lunch. Likewise, as a feminist, I find it rather offensive that women could be turned into commercial milk factories, valued for their body fluids.

Human breast milk cheese first popped onto my radar screen a couple of years ago when a short-lived  blog devoted to all things cheese mentioned that cheese made from breast milk existed. Although it was the first I’d heard of such a thing, a Google search revealed that it wasn’t completely original.

Fast forward a couple of years to January 17^th of this year to find me too grossed out by a CBC Radio interview to finish my dinner. The dinner time show As it Happens featured an interview with Miriam Simun, a cheese maker from NYC who makes cheese from breast milk. In the interview she claimed that depending on the diet of the woman sharing the milk, the taste of the cheese varied widely. (My Cheddar filled omelet didn’t seem so appetizing anymore.)

And now this spring there is a case in New York City where a chef has been ordered to remove breast milk cheese from his menu. He defended his artisan cheese on his blog:

While not an insane response, I can’t help but wonder why he and his wife didn’t follow through on her plan to donate this overflow to a milk bank that serves needy babies? Surely that’s easier than turning the stuff into cheese?

Before you start to think that this fad is confined to the five boroughs of New York City, I’ll tell you about the breast milk ice cream that was recently banned in London, England. The Icecreamists, a fashion-forward, adult concept malt shop that at one time had a pop up store in swish and fashionable Selfridges department store, launched a vanilla flavoured breast milk ice cream they sold under the name Baby Gaga (apparently Lady Gaga, the singer, has taken legal action to have them change the name).

This week, there is new news  in the breast milk trend that is disturbing in its own way. Australian scientists have developed genetically modified cows that can produce milk that duplicates very closely the nutritional and digestibility qualities of human milk. Their accomplishment comes after introducing human genes into a herd of 300 dairy cattle. While I can see the commercial possibilities for the baby food industry, I can’t help but imagine the ethical argument against eating beef containing human genes (not to mention the standard GMO arguments) that will ensue.

What do you make of all this industrious use of breast milk?  Is it worthy of a boobie prize for being 100% wacky or am I the crazy person here?

Sodium.  It all depends on who you ask whether it is ranked among the most notorious of chemicals in our food, or one of the most essential.  Sodium has been implicated, study after study, in being one of the major causes of heart disease in Canada.  Reducing our sodium intake, on a whole, is a good thing.

But ask food processors to reduce sodium, and you are up for a challenge.  Sodium tastes good, and high sodium products sell well.  Whether in baked goods, canned soups, cereals, or snack foods, salt just makes everything taste good.  However, consumer awareness is increasing, and lower sodium products can receive approval for health claims on the package label.

It sounds like a simple answer, just reduce the amount of salt in the product, and everything will be fine.  For certain products, however, salt is key to food safety and quality. Manufacturers of cheese, cured meats, dried sausages, and charcuterie need sodium to prevent microbial spoilage, and to reduce pathogenic bacteria. It’s the artisanal producers who will be hardest hit.  Reformulating an artisanal or traditional product to accommodate new food regulations very well may take away from the traditional quality of the product itself, and undermine the markets that have been developed for the food.

Health Canada is currently running a food industry stakeholder consultation on reducing sodium levels in processed foods.  Whether you are for sodium reduction, or against sodium reduction, make your opinion heard.  The deadline is January 31, 2011.

Photo © larryjh1234. Published under a Creative Commons License.

There is no more fundamental component of culture than food and drink.   As Brillat Savarin wrote, “The fate of nations depends upon how they eat.” A starving nation is known as a failed state.

These are dark days here in Canada. Food sections have been radically down-sized.  People who merely eat have become self-proclaimed experts.  Food writing is added to magazines and newspapers almost as an afterthought.   The most stunningly–stupid nail in the coffin was driven in last week in Toronto.  With the dismissal of James Chatto from Toronto Life it is clear that this particular publication has slipped into the illusion that ‘long format’  food writing is of no value and years of experience  count for little or nothing.  James Chatto’s contribution to the food life of Canada has been immense.  His book, The Man Who Ate Toronto, is the history of that city’s restaurant community.  His constant monitoring of the food scene there has made him the most respected food journalist in the region – perhaps even in Canada –  and a real inspiration for young chefs to join the gastro-scene.

As one of the judges for the Le Cordon Bleu World Food Media Awards, let me assure you that Canada is one of the few nations on earth where such food communication – wise, balanced, insightful reporting – is dismissed so callously.  Perhaps because, for centuries, food has been so abundant here that it is taken for granted. We have so much that we simply have no perceived need to write or communicate about it unless it’s a sound bite or promotional piece.

As Dr. Barbara Santich, the co-founder of the Australian Symposium on Gastronomy writes, “As food is to wine, so is language to gastronomy… Language is a means of anticipating, prolonging, repeating, intensifying the gastronomic experience – and also an invitation to others to share it.”

Over the years I’ve come to believe that when one door slams closed, another one opens. For  James, he’ll be working on his next book, but for the restaurant community in Toronto and environs it may be a long time before someone of his ilk surfaces to nurture the talent and ingredients that we all know are part of our collective heritage.

Photo by Quinn Dombrowski. Published under a Creative Commons License.

Even with the fanfare, the Liberal party is not entering into a massive food policy void.  Canada has a food policy.  For better or worse, Canada has a whole pile of government food policies, regulatory agencies, and organizational tiers.  Months ago, a similar conversation process took place about a national food policy, and continues to draw conclusions and influence program management in the public health sector.

The new Liberal policy delicately dances around the current structures, not focusing on heavy restructuring, rather looking at increasing efficiency within the current system.  That said, there already is a strong level of restructuring and evaluation.  Just consider the Auditor General’s report last week, evaluating the efficacy of the Research Branch at Agriculture and Agrifood Canada, or the discussion paper from a month ago on Sustainable Development.  Some of the evaluation and reevaluation proposed sounds repetitive.

Within this document, there is very little to cause protest.  After all, it’s supposed to draw support to the party.  The highlights read like grand generalizations about change, and in my opinion there is not a lot of substance to evaluate.  Personally, I am delighted that a party is looking to prioritize the food issue.  But will it change my political views?  I won’t pass judgment until I see the full platform with action plans, not just generalizations.

It’s misleading to assume that the platform will narrow the “rural-urban divide”.  And it’s ironic to assume that food issues are solely a rural issue.   Agriculture and fisheries are still predominantly rural, but the continuum from farm or sea to fork is a more complex path.  The rural environment has been neglected, but beyond that, there has not been a comprehensive approach to full food sector development beyond agriculture, as evidenced in last year’s budget.  Most secondary processing and distribution is an urban issue, while nutrition issues, inspection and food packaging laws will impact us all, whether we are in the 20% rural minority, or not.

Lastly, there is no mention of the cultural importance of a strong food sector.  Economics is vital, and public health care, like it or not, is really an economic issue.  How can political policies reenforce our culinary cultural identity?  Developing a stronger cultural and societal value for food will reinforce public support for best economic policies for the food sector.

Have you read the new food policy platform?  Are you going to join the debates?  What do you like, and what is missing?

————————————–

Posted by Amy Proulx

Photo © countryliving.com

Whether it’s inferior olive oil passed off as extra-virgin,  cow’s milk cheese sold under an expensive sheep’s milk label, or mouldy tomato paste sneaking past quality control and into ketchup bottles,  food fraud is a growing concern.

In a recent article,  U of Guelph technology helps US monitor food fraud, Stewart Laidlaw writes:

The FDA called U of G, which has come up with a world-leading technology using DNA testing to sort out such frauds.

“We’re the ones writing the protocols for the FDA,” says U of G professor Robert Hanner.

Hanner is the global campaign co-ordinator of the school’s Barcode of Life project, which is working to genetically identify all the varieties of fish in the world. The resulting database can then be used to identify the types of fish sold to consumers.

Of course, fraud isn’t new, it doesn’t stop at the border, nor is it limited to fish. But if Canada doesn’t keep up with the US on food fraud issues, Hanner wonders if our own technology could be used against us.

What sort of anti-fraud measures would you like to see initiated in Canada? Should we follow the US lead, work together or create our own system?

Photo © geishaboy500. Published under a Creative Commons License.

What is the Canadian law for satiety claims?

Written by Ronald L. Doering

The food, beverage and supplement weight management product market in the U.S. last year was $3.64 billion and growing fast. There are several approaches including providing slimming ingredients that increase energy expenditure, moderating carbohydrate metabolism and blocking dietary fat absorption. For the food industry, beyond the traditional claims such as low fat (food minus), a burgeoning new field involves a shift to satiety claims (food plus). Foods marketed for satiety have enhanced levels of fibre or protein and claim to enhance feelings of fullness after eating, helping the consumer to resist hunger pangs between meals. Seeing the market potential created by the rapid rise of obesity, and the increasing recognition that most diets don’t work over time, the Canadian food industry has already been pushing the envelope on satiety claims. What is the Canadian law?

For many years, food regulators in Canada insisted that satiety-type claims on food were not legal as they fell under the “drug” definition. While it took some serious pushing back, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) now appears to accept the argument that hunger is a desire, an appetite for food to satisfy a craving of the body, or an uneasy sensation, not an organic function and therefore not a drug claim. As a result, “reduces hunger,” “helps to reduce your appetite,” “satisfies hunger feelings” and “increases feelings of fullness” are now all widely used in the marketplace without enforcement action.

The CFIA continues to cling to the distinction that “satisfying hunger” is acceptable but “managing hunger” is not. I’m not making this up and will not try to explain the CFIA rationale (it’s a bit like the “clear” distinction that the CFIA considers laxative claims as verboten, but laxation claims or “promotes regularity” are perfectly legal).

Foods specifically represented for use in weight maintenance are still governed by a separate regulatory regime that is rooted in the old Information Letter No. 793 (1991), but this “law” is beyond the scope of this article.

There is still a lot of room for regulatory turbulence, particularly given the new products that are close to coming on stream. Some ingredient manufacturers insist that they have products that can promote “body shaping.” Antioxidants such as green tea may have potential in weight management and recent studies have suggested that obesity may have a microbial component opening the door for claims about gut microflora. If one part of Health Canada (HC) does not think the scientific evidence is strong enough (Food and Nutrition) then companies will just go next door to another office at HC and sell the products as natural health products (NHPs) where the standard is not the same and sweeping claims are already being made. This is yet another area where foods are not competing on a level playing field with NHPs.

There is also going to be regulatory turbulence until there is clearer guidance on standards for efficacy. Some companies have suggested that a Satiety Index (SI) be developed, but the unhappy regulatory confusion on Glycemic Index (GI) does not bode well for that approach. Seeing the marketing potential and what competitors are doing, satiety claims will continue to proliferate in the Canadian marketplace. The industry will get bolder in their claims, especially with off-label promotions. Competitors will complain to the CFIA. Uneven enforcement and regulatory uncertainty will abound. Sound familiar?

Photo © Robert Magorian | Dreamstime.com

Update: Deadline has been extended to December 14, 2009.

Food policy in Canada — it’s a bit of a daunting concept.  In Canada, we are blessed to have a bountiful food supply, very low food costs, and a vast variety to choose from.  But what is our policy about food?  We’ve got regulations about food safety, agricultural policy, and so on.  These are technical interpretations of food. Perhaps more importantly, how do we view food in our daily life, in our culture, and in our social responsibility towards each other — and interpret it all through national policies and programs?  Do we have a consensus on how our food security and food sovereignty should develop in the future? A lot of questions, and a lot of answers.

Between 1977 and 1980, the People’s Food Policy Commission asked for feedback on these specific questions. A generation later, many issues remain the same: nutritional quality and obesity, the environmental impact of our agricultural systems, food security and equality.  It is almost eerie, reading the accounts of 30 years ago, and knowing many of the same problems remain unresolved.

Today, the  People’s Food Policy Project, is again seeking the opinions, the stories and views of Canadians of all walks of life. Supported by Heifer International, Inter Pares, USC Canada and Food Secure Canada, this project is currently in the consulting phase until December 14, 2009. In essence, they are asking what is important for you as a participant in our food environment.  What policies would you propose to address these issues?  Whether you are a food professional, a community advocate, a policy specialist, or just an interested consumer, the People’s Food Policy Project wants to hear from you.

If results are like the last report, no single answer or firm consensus will emerge,  but at least they’ll know a number of directions to take when moving forward.  Will a new report bring about tangible change?  Only if there is a strong participation and a upwelling of support.

If you could write a food policy for Canada, what would it look like? We’d love to hear your thoughts, but don’t forget to let the People’s Food Policy Project know your feelings, too.

______________________

Posted by Amy Proulx.
Photo © Lucyrk in LA used under Creative Commons License